Reducing Information Pollution
An airline pilot prepares to land a jet full of passengers. A voice from the air traffic control channel says: “Don’t land on the runway; it’s too dangerous. Land in the trees beyond the runway; it’s safe there.” No pilot in their right mind would follow these directions, but this hypothetical situation illustrates the threat posed by information pollution. In this scenario, the voice on the air traffic control channel has no right to “free speech.” Some speech is so dangerous that it cannot be tolerated.
When dangerous lies pollute important information channels, and (unlike our hypothetical pilot) not everyone has the capacity to properly discount them, what are we to do? Does “free speech absolutism” really make sense, given that such situations exist? Or do speech rights have limits, like every other right?
Communications concerning recent hurricanes and government responses present another test case. Should we allow false information to proliferate when we know that millions of people’s lives and well-being are at stake?
FEMA recently created a “rumor response” page. Here are some of the lies it is fact checking:
Rumor: FEMA does not have enough money to provide disaster assistance for Helene.
Rumor: FEMA is asking for cash donations and turning away volunteers.
Rumor: Funding for FEMA disaster response was diverted to support international efforts or border related issues.
Rumor: FEMA is confiscating donations for survivors.
Rumor: FEMA will only provide $750 to disaster survivors to support their recovery.
Disinformation and misinformation around Hurricanes Helene and Milton are causing chaos. The Verge reported that “TikTok posts either calling for violence or applauding unverified claims about physical attacks against FEMA personnel have garnered millions of views, according to a report [published 10/09/24] from nonprofit Media Matters for America.” These efforts go beyond misinformation and disinformation to become dismediation: the discrediting of necessary institutions, and of valuable channels of communication. Dismediation, a term coined by Maria Bustillos, ultimately does more damage than disinformation or misinformation, since it poisons the entire well. As a result, there are people who no longer trust any information if it comes from FEMA or the National Weather Service.
Recent efforts to discredit and even eliminate FEMA and the National Weather Service represent a serious threat to our collective safety. Circulating false information – or blocking true information – about emergencies can lead to enormous costs in lives, property, and public trust. If we shouldn’t allow such interference with these agencies, we should ask whether speech limits make sense in other spaces, such as at public meetings, news outlets, and online forums. At the very least, we should praise people who criticize the spread of disinformation and misinformation. Such criticism protects people’s lives, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Promoting disinformation and misinformation threatens these things. Those who protect us from disinformation and misinformation are not part of “cancel culture” nor are they exercising unwarranted censorship of protected speech.
When bad actors spread mis- and disinformation, they interfere with speech that is highly likely to be true and useful. Such interference should properly be called “anti-speech” rather than “free speech.” Yet, the forces of chaos in our society continually state that they are exercising “free speech.” When our civil and governmental institutions function properly, they limit the kinds of speech that occur in them. Scientific journals use peer-review standards to ensure the quality of the research they publish. Judges limit what can be said in a courtroom to serve the administration of justice better. News editors edit out language that is incorrect or misleading. All of these activities filter out problematic speech, but none of them amounts to unwarranted censorship.
The question, therefore, is not whether we ought to have constraints on speech but what kinds of constraints. Some constraints on speech – such as the banning of books or the imprisonment of peaceful protesters – damage our legal and civil institutions. Other kinds of speech should be constrained. These include incitement, defamation, fraud, harassment, threats, conspiracy, and many others.
The public sphere, which Jürgen Habermas identified as key to a functioning democracy, faces big challenges. Underlying these challenges are false assumptions about how public information spaces should function. Chief among these assumptions is that the public information space must be open to all. The public sphere cannot survive, however, if it tolerates those who would destroy it. Karl Popper noted: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.” How can we maintain a functioning society while our public information space is overrun with info-pollution?
Science and journalism, when they function properly, contribute to a society-wide information immune system that protects against pathological beliefs. “A pathological belief [is] one that is likely to be false, to produce unnecessary harm, and to be held with conviction and tenacity in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is likely false and will produce unnecessary harm” (Mauer 2022).
Misinformation, disinformation, and dismediation represent serious threats to our way of life. Judicious measures to limit their influence are vital to a healthy society, and facile accusations of censorship only serve to inflame irrational fears.
 | A guest post by
|
I appreciate this column. It's worth adding, perhaps, that free-speech absolutism is un-American. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized limits on free speech. These include incitement to unlawful activity, defamation, and fraud, all of which are perpetrated daily on social media platforms such as X (or Twitter, as it continues to be known). Congress has also legislated limits, including limitations on corporate speech, such as the false claims of tobacco companies, and conversely mandating speech, such as the health warnings required on tobacco products. In short, American society has flourished with the kinds of limits you are calling for -- which already exist in the law but are trampled by the stampede of new and largely unregulated technologies.